1. In each of the following questions, a question and three statements I, II and III are given. You have to decide whether the data given in the statements are sufficient to answer the question or not.How much profit did the company earn in the year 2002 ? I. The company earned 40% more profit in the year 2003 than that in the year 2001. II. The company earned a total profit of Rs. 20 crores in the year 2001 and 2002 taken together. III. In the year 2003, the company earned 80 per cent profit of that in 2002.






Write Comment

Type in
(Press Ctrl+g to toggle between English and the chosen language)

Comments

  • By: anil on 05 May 2019 01.32 am
    Clearly, each statement lone is insufficient as there is data about only 2 years in each statement. I & II : Let profit in 2001 = 100x and profit in 2002 = y => profit in 2003 = 140x [40% more] Now, 100x + y = 20 Since, there are two variables and one equation, we cannot solve it. Thus, I & II together are insufficient. Similarly, I & III and II & III are insufficient. I & II & III : Combining all the statements, we get
    Let profit in 2001 = 100x => profit in 2003 = 140x [40% more] => Profit in 2002 = $$frac{80}{100}$$ * 140x = 112x Now, 100x + 112x = 20 crore [From II] => x = 20/212 => Profit in 2002 = 112x = 112 * $$frac{20}{212}$$ = 10.5 crore Thus, all statements together are sufficient.
Show Similar Question And Answers
QA->Which country recently decided to move ahead with its proposal to hike foreign investment ceiling in the insurance sector to 49 per cent from the present 26 per cent.?....
QA->What is the total earnings of a worker from the following data? Standard time for completing the job 50 hours. Actual time taken for completing the job 45 hours. Time rate is Rs.20 per hour, premium bonus is 60% of time saved.....
QA->National Security Adviser of Donald Trump who has resigned amid growing questions about whether he had deceived Vice President Mike Pence, and potentially the FBI, about his phone calls with the Russian envoy on December 29, 2016?....
QA->If any question arises whether a Bill is a Money Bill or not, the decision of the……….shall be final:....
QA->A and B can do a work in 12 days. B and C together can do it in 15 days and C and A together in 20 days. If A, B, C work together, they will complete the work in ?....
MCQ-> The second plan to have to examine is that of giving to each person what she deserves. Many people, especially those who are comfortably off, think this is what happens at present: that the industrious and sober and thrifty are never in want, and that poverty is due to idleness, improvidence, drinking, betting, dishonesty, and bad character generally. They can point to the fact that a labour whose character is bad finds it more difficult to get employment than one whose character is good; that a farmer or country gentleman who gambles and bets heavily, and mortgages his land to live wastefully and extravagantly, is soon reduced to poverty; and that a man of business who is lazy and does not attend to it becomes bankrupt. But this proves nothing that you cannot eat your cake and have it too; it does not prove that your share of the cake was a fair one. It shows that certain vices make us rich. People who are hard, grasping, selfish, cruel, and always ready to take advantage of their neighbours, become very rich if they are clever enough not to overreach themselves. On the other hand, people who are generous, public spirited, friendly, and not always thinking of the main chance, stay poor when they are born poor unless they have extraordinary talents. Also as things are today, some are born poor and others are born with silver spoons in their mouths: that is to say, they are divided into rich and poor before they are old enough to have any character at all. The notion that our present system distributes wealth according to merit, even roughly, may be dismissed at once as ridiculous. Everyone can see that it generally has the contrary effect; it makes a few idle people very rich, and a great many hardworking people very poor.On this, intelligent Lady, your first thought may be that if wealth is not distributed according to merit, it ought to be; and that we should at once set to work to alter our laws so that in future the good people shall be rich in proportion to their goodness and the bad people poor in proportion to their badness. There are several objections to this; but the very first one settles the question for good and all. It is, that the proposal is impossible and impractical. How are you going to measure anyone's merit in money? Choose any pair of human beings you like, male or female, and see whether you can decide how much each of them should have on her or his merits. If you live in the country, take the village blacksmith and the village clergyman, or the village washerwoman and the village schoolmistress, to begin with. At present, the clergyman often gets less pay than the blacksmith; it is only in some villages he gets more. But never mind what they get at present: you are trying whether you can set up a new order of things in which each will get what he deserves. You need not fix a sum of money for them: all you have to do is to settle the proportion between them. Is the blacksmith to have as much as the clergyman? Or twice as much as the clergyman? Or half as much as the clergyman? Or how much more or less? It is no use saying that one ought to have more the other less; you must be prepared to say exactly how much more or less in calculable proportion.Well, think it out. The clergyman has had a college education; but that is not any merit on his part: he owns it to his father; so you cannot allow him anything for that. But through it he is able to read the New Testament in Greek; so that he can do something the blacksmith cannot do. On the other hand, the blacksmith can make a horse-shoe, which the parson cannot. How many verses of the Greek Testament are worth one horse-shoe? You have only to ask the silly question to see that nobody can answer it.Since measuring their merits is no use, why not try to measure their faults? Suppose the blacksmith swears a good deal, and gets drunk occasionally! Everybody in the village knows this; but the parson has to keep his faults to himself. His wife knows them; but she will not tell you what they are if she knows that you intend to cut off some of his pay for them. You know that as he is only a mortal human being, he must have some faults; but you cannot find them out. However, suppose he has some faults he is a snob; that he cares more for sport and fashionable society than for religion! Does that make him as bad as the blacksmith, or twice as bad, or twice and quarter as bad, or only half as bad? In other words, if the blacksmith is to have a shilling, is the parson to have six pence, or five pence and one-third, or two shillings? Clearly these are fools' questions: the moment they bring us down from moral generalities to business particulars it becomes plain to every sensible person that no relation can be established between human qualities, good or bad, and sums of money, large or small.It may seem scandalous that a prize-fighter, for hitting another prize-fighter so hard at Wembley that he fell down and could not rise within ten seconds, received the same sum that was paid to the Archbishop of Canterbury for acting as Primate of the Church of England for nine months; but none of those who cry out against the scandal can express any better in money the difference between the two. Not one of the persons who think that the prize-fighter should get less than the Archbishop can say how much less. What the prize- fighter got for his six or seven months' boxing would pay a judge's salary for two years; and we all agree that nothing could be more ridiculous, and that any system of distributing wealth which leads to such absurdities must be wrong. But to suppose that it could be changed by any possible calculation that an ounce of archbishop of three ounces of judge is worth a pound of prize-fighter would be sillier still. You can find out how many candles are worth a pound of butter in the market on any particular day; but when you try to estimate the worth of human souls the utmost you can say is that they are all of equal value before the throne of God:And that will not help you in the least to settle how much money they should have. You must simply give it up, and admit that distributing money according to merit is beyond mortal measurement and judgement.Which of the following is not a vice attributed to the poor by the rich?
 ....
MCQ-> Study the following information carefully and answer the questions given below : Following are the criteria for short listing candidates for calling for interview for Management Trainees in an organization : The candidates must- (i) not be less than 21 years and more than 28 years as on 1.11.04. (ii) have secured at least 60 per cent marks in graduation. (iii) have secured at least 65 per cent marks in the preliminary selection examination. (iv) have secured at least 55 per cent marks in the final selection examination. (v) be ready to join work immediately after the interview. In the case of a candidate who fulfills all other criteria EXCEPT- (A) at (iv) above but has secured more than 75 per cent marks in preliminary selection examination his/her case is to be referred to Deputy General Manager. (B) at (ii) above but has secured at least 65 per cent marks in post graduation, his/her case is to be referred to General Manager. In each of the questions below is given the information of one candidate. You have to study the information provided with reference to the conditions given above and decide whether the candidate is to be called for interview or some other course of action as stated below is to be taken. You are not to assume other than the information provided in each question. All these cases are given to you as on 1.11.2004. Now read the information provided in each question and decide which of the following courses of actions is to be taken with regard to each candidate and mark your answer.Mark answer a: if the candidate is to be called for interview. Mark answer b: if the case is to be referred to General Manager. Mark answer c: if the candidate is not to be called for interview. Mark answer d: if the data provided are not sufficient to take a decision. Mark answer e: if the case is to be referred to Deputy General Manager.Neelam Srivastava has secured 75 per cent marks in the preliminary selection examination. She was 22 years old as on 5th December, 2000. She has secured 65 per cent and 60 per cent marks in the Final selection examination and in graduation respectively. She is ready to join immediately after the interview.
 ....
MCQ-> Each of the questions below consists of a question and two statements numbered I and II are given below it. You have to decide whether the data provided in the statements are sufficient to answer the question. Read both the statements and Give answer a: if the data in Statement I alone are sufficient to answer the question, while the data in Statement II alone are not sufficient to answer the question. Give answer b: if the data in Statement II alone are sufficient to answer the question, while the data in Statement I alone are not sufficient to answer the question. Give answer c: if the data in Statement I alone or in Statement II alone are sufficient to answer the question. Give answer d: if the data in both the Statements I and II together are not sufficient to answer the question. Give answer e: if the data in both the Statements I and II together are necessary to answer the question.After how many months (from the start of business) did C join the business? (I) A and B started the business together by investing in the respective ratio of 7 : 6. After few months, from the start of the business, C joined them. The respective ratio of investment of B and C was 12 : 11. (II) The annual profit earned by A, B and C from the business was Rs. 45,000. The sum of A’s share in the annual profit and B’s share in the annual profit was Rs. 35,100.....
MCQ-> In each of the following questions, a question and three statements I, II and III are given. You have to decide whether the data given in the statements are sufficient to answer the question or not.How much profit did the company earn in the year 2002 ? I. The company earned 40% more profit in the year 2003 than that in the year 2001. II. The company earned a total profit of Rs. 20 crores in the year 2001 and 2002 taken together. III. In the year 2003, the company earned 80 per cent profit of that in 2002. ....
MCQ-> Each of the questions below consists of a question and two statements numbered I and II given below it. You have to decide whether the data provided in the statements are sufficient to answer the question. Give answer a: if the data in statement I alone are sufficient to answer the question, while the data in statement II alone are not sufficient to answer the question. Give answer b: if the data in statement II alone are sufficient to answer the question, while the data in statement I alone are not sufficient to answer the question. Give answer c: if the data either in statement I alone or in statement II alone are sufficient to answer the question. Give answer d: if the data given in both the statements I & II together are not sufficient to answer the question, and Give answer e: if the data in both the statements I & II together are necessary to answer the question.Among M, P, K, J, T and W, who is lighter than only the heaviest ? I. P is heavier than M and T. II. W is heavier than P but lighter than J who is not the heaviest.....
Terms And Service:We do not guarantee the accuracy of available data ..We Provide Information On Public Data.. Please consult an expert before using this data for commercial or personal use
DMCA.com Protection Status Powered By:Omega Web Solutions
© 2002-2017 Omega Education PVT LTD...Privacy | Terms And Conditions